Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Callet v. August Hat - Complaint

Callet v. August Hat - Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by slburstein
Callet v. August Hat - Complaint
Callet v. August Hat - Complaint

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Mar 27, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF
NEW YORK
~
zr-:~
~
~:\
cv
2030
CALLET WORLD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.AUGUST HAT COMPANY INC. d/b/a HEXand APPLE INC.CASE NO.: -CV-ECF CASE
c
COMPLAINT
-···
_
.
··~
;.::-
..
-
URY TRIAL DEMANDED
N
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Callet World LLC ("Callet World"), by and through its attorneys, MalekSchiffrin LLP, complains and alleges as follows against defendants August Hat Company, Inc.d/b/a Hex and Apple Inc.:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
Callet World changed the mobile device case industry in 2009 when it introducedthe popular Callet, a product that changed the way people view mobile device cases. Reviewers,analysts and consumers immediately recognized the Callet as a"must have." Before the Callet,cell phone covers tended to have a singular design with uninteresting design features that did notallow for additional flexibility. The Callet was radically different. In one small and lightweightpiece, it offered the same sophisticated mobile phone protection in an elegantly designed productwith a distinctive design and eye-catching sleeves that allowed a user to consolidate theirpersonal effects and that gave the Callet an unmistakable look.
1
 
2. The Callet design features were carried over to mobile phone cases for productssuch
as
the iPhone and the Blackberry, some
of
the most ubiquitous communications products onthe market today.
3.
Callet World's creative achievements have resulted in intellectual propertyprotection for Callet World's innovations, including a design patent. Nevertheless, CalletWorld's innovations have been the subject
of
widespread emulation
by
its competitors, who haveattempted to capitalize on Callet World's innovations
by
imitating Callet World's elegant anddistinctive product design. One
of
the principal imitators is August Hat Company, Inc. d/b/a/Hex ("Hex"), which recently introduced the Hex Solo Wallet Case and HEX X Pretty SweetSolo Wallet Case line
of
mobile phone cases to compete with the Callet for the widely populariPhone. On information and belief, instead
of
pursuing independent product development, Hexhas chosen to slavishly copy Callet World's elegant and distinctive product design, in violation
of
Callet World's valuable intellectual property rights. As alleged below in detail, Hex has madeits mobile phone cases work and look like Callet World's products through widespread patentinfringement. Hex's knock
off
design is sold
by
many retailers including
by
defendant AppleInc. ("Apple").
4.
By this action, Callet World seeks to put a stop
to
Hex's
and Apple's illegalconduct and obtain compensation for the violations that have occurred thus far.
THE PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Callet World LLC is a New York limited liability company having itsprincipal place ofbusiness at 32 East 32nd Street, New York, New York 10001.
6.
Defendant August Hat Company, Inc., is a California Corporation doing business
as
Hex with an address at 3051 Sturgis Road, Oxnard, California 93030. Defendant August Hart
2
I
I
I
~
'
(
I
I
 
Company, Inc. has designated Roque Valladares, having an address at 3051 Sturgis Road,Oxnard, California 93030,
as
its agent for service
of
process.
7.
Defendant Apple Inc. is a California corporation having its principal place
of
business at
1
Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Defendant Apple Inc. has designatedCT Corporation System with an address at
111
Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011 asits agent for service
of
process.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under
28
U.S.C. §
1331
(federalquestion) and
28
U.S.C.
§
1338(a) (any Act
of
Congress relating to patents or trademarks).
9.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Hex and Apple because Hex and Applehave committed and continue
to
commit acts
of
infringement in violation
35
U.S.C.
§
271, andplace infringing products into the stream
of
commerce, with the knowledge or understanding thatsuch products are sold in the State
ofNew
York, including in this District. The acts
by
Hex andApple have caused and continue
to
cause injury to Callet World within this District. Uponinformation and belief, Hex and Apple have derived and continue to derive substantial revenuefrom the sale
of
infringing products within this District, expect their actions to haveconsequences within this District, and derive substantial revenue from interstate and international
I
commerce.
10.
Venue is proper within this District under
28
U.S.C.
§§
1391(b) and (c) becauseHex and Apple transact business within this District and offer for sale in this District productsthat infringe the Callet World patent. In addition, venue is proper because Callet World'sprincipal place
of
business is in this District and Callet World suffered harm in this District.Moreover, a substantial part
of
the events giving rise
to
the claim occurred in this District.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->